I followed the thread that talked about MushClient claiming support of <image> and all, but I was wondering: instead of now denying support, can it be an option (possibly default off) to have it claim support even though its only partial?
I think hes coming from a users perspective. I think he means he wants to be able to have links pop up rather than whatever the server does when it says no.
MC says it doesnt support images, or at least, the recent thread said it would stop.
Or at least, thats what I get from it. Ive no way to check either way, dont use MXP. But I think he wants to be able to have his client claim support, like it used to.
Yeah. I thought about that, but forgot to suggest it. It is a lot easier for the user to make the client say yes, when it doesn't matter if the support is limited, than to convince the staff of a mud to test for a specific client. Being able to adjust this behaviour in the client when it is useful would be a lot nicer than having it never say it can support them.
Exactly. I'm coming from a user's perspective. I wouldn't play at a game that had the hyper-graphial map like that one guy had, nor would I ever use a client that embedded graphics in my client... but I want it MushClient to provide me a link, no matter what the server thinks :)
See. As a user, I want a text client, period. I have no desire for anything else. Moderate/limited MXP support can enhance the text experience, but I want to keep that limited.
If you ever started supporting images embedded in your text windows, and it wasn't an option to use MXP /without/ those images, i'd have to stop using the client... its just distracting. :)
Ah.. But then you could in such a client always have a 'show links only for images' option Ixokai. At least if it was some version of Mushclient anyway. Other developers would probably be far less responsive and babble something about finding some other client if you didn't like it. ;)
Personally.. I am used to text only, in news servers and it pisses me off every time someone says, "heh, look at this... Do you see the problems in ..." and there is an imbedded image, but the news reader doesn't show it. Worse, the decoder option will show them, but not in context, so it is hard to tell which image, which part of the posting refers to. I can easilly imagine something similar happening in a pure text mud client when the images are intended to be seen in the context of the text. If you can live with that, then a client with full support that lets you show only links as an option would be a good compromise, just as letting us force the client to respond with "yes I can do that" as a user option is a decent compromise over it insisting that it has 0 support.